A Brief Chronicle of the Moscow – Metropolia
Autocephaly Agreement
December, 1961 – Initial contact made between Moscow’s Archbishop Nikodim (Rostov) and the American Metropolia’s Archbishop John (Shakhovskoy) at the New Delhi Assembly of the World Council of Churches. Nikodim suggests future meetings.
1963 – An important meeting (unofficial) held between Metropolitan Nikodim and Metropolia representatives, including Metropoliatn Leonty, in the United States. Nikodim had come to the U.S. at the invitation of the National Council of Churches.
1967 – Another “unofficial” meeting in the United States between Metropolitan Nikodim and Metropolia representatives.
May, 1968 – The Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate decides officially to recognize marriages between Orthodox and Catholics even when they are performed by a Catholic priest.
August, 1968 – An “unofficial” meeting held between Metropolitan Nikodim and Metropolia delegates to the General Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Uppsala, Sweden. Definite steps are taken. A “platform and a procedure for negotiations” are elaborated. Negotiations enter a new phase.
January 21, 1969 – An “unofficial” meeting held between Metropolitan Nikodim and Metropolia representatives at Nikodim’s hotel in New York.
February 3, 1969 – A second important “unofficial” meeting between Metropolitan Nikodim and Metropolia leaders at Metropolitan Ireney’s residence in Syosset, Long Island.
March 11, 1969 – A Great Council of Bishops of the American Metropolia “accepts and confirms” the report of Bishop Kiprian concerning the meeting of February 3. It is resolved to enter into official negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate.
March 20, 1969 – Metropolitan Ireney, first primate of the Metropolia, writes Patriarch Alexis of Moscow informing him of the decision of the Great Council of Bishops on March 11.
August 5, 1969 – The Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate “after a discussion of the correspondence with Metropolitan Ireney” and of the “correspondence and earlier contacts between Metropolitan Nikodim and Bishop Kiprian concerning the question of normalizing the relationship between the Moscow Patriarchate and the North American Metropolia,” authorizes Metropolitan Nikodim to “continue negotiations,” and gives him “appropriate instructions.”
August 24-25, 1969 – Metropolitan Nikodim meets with Frs. Schmemann, Meyendorff, Pishtey, and Skvir of the Metropolia in Geneva, Switzerland. Basic agreement is reached. It is decided to hold a special meeting in Tokyo, Japan, to treat the question of the Japanese Orthodox Church.
September, 1969 – The Metropolia Council of Bishops approves the “basic content” of the Tokyo agreement. Diocesan conventions are informed and express “unanimous approval” (Fr. Pishtey).
October 12, 1969 – Metropolitan Nikodim serves a liturgy at the chapel of the Russicum in Rome and communicates a number of Roman Catholics present.
November 17, 1969 – The Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate approves the results of the August meeting in Geneva and “authorizes” Metropolitan Nikodim to continue negotiations.
November 28, 1969 – A crucial “four-sided” meeting occurs in Tokyo, Japan, between Metropolitan Nikodim, representatives of the American Metropolia, and representatives of the two Japanese Missions (i.e., that canonically under the Metropolia and that under Moscow). At this meeting Moscow agrees to found an “autonomous” Japanese Orthodox Church and the Metropolia relinquishes all canonical rights over the Japanese Mission. “A final draft of agreement” between Moscow and the Metropolia is prepared and an agreement signed between Moscow and those Japanese Orthodox formerly under the Metropolia.
November, 1969 – The Russian Church Abroad’s Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal hears of the impending Moscow-Metropolia agreement and asks his laity not to visit the churches of the American Metropolia or to have communion in prayer with it.
December 6, 1969 – An article by the Metropolia’s Chancellor, Fr. Joseph Pishtey, in the emigré daily Novoe Russkoe Slovo announces that agreement has almost been concluded between Moscow and the Metropolia. This is the first public announcement of the negotiations.
December 8, 1969 – Protopresbyter George Grabbe, Director of the Russian Church Abroad’s Public and Foreign Relations Department, pens a reflective protest against the impending “autocephaly.”
December 9, 1969 – The Russian Church Abroad’s Archbishop Nikon of Washington and Florida issues a “warning” to the American Metropolia, showing the terrible dangers inherent in the “autocephaly” agreement. The warning is printed in Novoe Russkoe Slovo.
December 12, 1969 – A meeting of the episcopate of the American Metropolia ratifies the agreement reached in Tokyo, Japan. Outside, more than 200 persons gather to protest the ratification and to pray for the enlightenment of the bishops.
December 16, 1969 – The Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate makes an official decision to permit Roman Catholics and Old Believers in the Soviet Union to partake of Orthodox sacraments, including Holy Communion.
December 19, 1969 – A council of the former Metropolia Japanese diocese holds a council which “unanimously” decides to ask Patriarch Alexis to grant “autonomy” to the Japanese Church.
January 8, 1970 – Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople informs Patriarch Alexis of Moscow that he will not recognize the proposed autocephaly and that he considers it uncanonical.
February 21, 1970 – The New York Times (p. 23) announces the December 16 decision of the Moscow Holy Synod under the heading “Russian Priests May Minister to Roman Catholics.”
December-March, 1970 – The “autocephaly” controversy rages on the pages of Novoe Russkoe Slovo and various ecclesiastical publications. Official warnings against concluding the agreement are issued by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad and by Metropoliatn Philaret. Individual clergy and laity and some whole parishes prepare to leave the American Metropolia for the Church Abroad.
March 15, 1970 – On the day of Orthodox Sunday, Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston issues “An appeal to the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Russian American Metropolia” urging them to reject the autocephaly agreement. Great stress is put on the fact that Moscow has officially decided to grant sacraments to non-Orthodox and to engage in common prayer with them.
March 31, 1970 – The autocephaly agreement is signed by Metropolitan Nikodim and Metropolitan Ireney of the Metropolia in New York.
April 3, 1970 – The Holy Synod of Moscow Patriarchate decides to remove the canonical suspension “burdening” that section of the Japanese Church formerly under the Metropolia.
April 9, 1970 – The Holy Synod of Moscow resolves to remove the suspension placed on the hierarchy of the North American Metropolia on December 12, 1947.
April 10, 1970 – An enlarged session of the Moscow Holy Synod decides to grant autocephaly to the American Metropolia and autonomy to the Church of Japan.
April 17, 1970 – Patriarch Alexis of Moscow dies at the age of ninety-three.
April 21, 1970 – The American Metropolia’s Bishop Theodosius of Alaska flies to Moscow to participate in Patriarch Alexis’ funeral service. Numerous heterodox, including the American Catholics Vazgen I and Cardinal Jan Willebrands of the Vatican Secretariat, participate in the service.
May 18, 1970 – Bishop Theodosius again comes to Moscow, this time to receive the tomos of autocephaly, which is solemnly handed to him by Metropolitan Pimen of Krutitsk, Guardian of the Patriarchal throne.
May 26, 1970 – Bishop Theodosius of Alaska participates in the forty-day memorial service for Patriarch Alexis. He also ordains a Soviet seminarian to the diaconate.
May 30, 1970 – Bishop Juvenaly of Tula, Nikodim’s first substitute as Head of the Moscow Patriarchate Foreign Department, visits the Metropolia’s St. Tikhon’s Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania, for a solemn liturgical concelebration with Metropolitan Ireney, Archbishop Kiprian of Philadelphia, and Bishop Theodosius of Alaska.
October 20, 1970 – A Council (Sobor) of the Metroplia episcopate, clergy, and laity is held at St. Tikhon’s Monastery. The tomos of autocephaly is read. By a vote of 301 to 7 (with 2 abstensions) the delegates present resolve to change the name of the Metropolia to “The Orthodox Church in America.” A delegation from the Russian Church Abroad (Bishop Lavr of Manhattan and Fr. George Grabbe) is refused permission to address the council.
Notes to the Chronicle:
Much of the information employed in the Chronicle comes from December 14, 1969, “Communiqué” of the Moscow Patriarchate (see Diakonia, vol. V, no. 2, 1970, pp. 144-47, and from Dmitry Grigorieff, “The Othodox Church in America from the Alaska Mission to Autocephaly”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 1970, no. 4, pp. 216-17, and Protopresbyter Joseph J. Pishtey, “Official Notification” of December 6, 1969, in Diakonia, vol. V, no. 2, 1970, pp. 142-4.
A glance at the “Brief Chronicle” introducing this Chapter shows that the initial contact between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Metropolia was made at the 1961 Assembly of the World Council of Churches in New Dehli, India. In its initial announcement of the impending autocephaly in Novoe Russkoe Slovo, December 6, 1969, the Metropolia avoided reference to this contact.1 In a later “adjusted” version, written after the granting of autocephaly, the year 1961 is admitted as the “unofficial” beginning of the events which were in time to bring the “Orthodox Church in America” into existence.2
See Diakonia, vol. V, no. 2, 1970, p. 143.
See St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, vol. IV, 1970, p. 216.
Newsweek magazine, which interested itself in the Moscow Patriarchate’s activities at New Dehli, reports that initially relations between the Patriarchate and Metropolia at the Assembly were hardly congenial: “Outraged at a Russian (Moscow Patriarchate) statement that their Church was free, a section of American Orthodoxy (i.e. the Metropolia) began quietly distributing mimeographed accounts of Church oppression by the Soviets.”3
Newsweek, Dec. 4, 1961, p. 82.
This proved to be embarrassing for Archbishop Nikodim (Rostov), the thirty-two year old leader of Moscow’s delegation, and he acted quickly to do something about it. Newsweek in a subsequent article on the Assembly observes, “Relations between the Moscow prelates and an American Orthodox group (the Metropolia) were still a bit scratchy as a result of an argument about religious freedom in the Soviet Union. Hoping to smooth things over, Nikodim suggested a visit to the U.S. might help clear things up. The idea shocked Archbishop John of San Francisco, delegate of a Russian Orthodox body which does not recognize the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate. Perhaps, he said, an unofficial meeting could be arranged in a few years but outside the U.S. ‘Why outside?’ asked the Russians. An aide of John explained: ‘The press in America would kill us.’ The Russians blinked. ‘So who is more free—you or us.’”1
Newsweek, December 11, 1961, p. 56.
One might wonder how a visit to the U.S. could “clear up” the matter of religious persecution in the Soviet Union. What Nikodim had in mind, of course, was something else, something which Archbishop John Shakhovskoy, who is not naïve, instantly perceived – namely, the possible recognition by Moscow of the legitimacy of the Metropolia’s position. As for Nikodim, he evidently felt that the bait of an escape from “uncanonicity” would serve to blunt the sharpness of future Metropolia statements on the persecution of religion in Russia and would prompt the Metropolia to take a less harsh view of the activities of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Such were the “unofficial” beginnings of the autocephaly process. Two years later a new development occurred. “In 1963 during an unofficial encounter between out late Primate Metropolitan Leonty with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate it became clear that the latter does no longer insist on canonical dependence and is ready to discuss the question of ‘autocephaly.’”1 According to the Metropolia’s “Official Notification” of December 6, 1969, the death of Metropolitan Leonty in 1965 “delayed for a time the solution of the question, but in the beginning of 1969 negotiations were resumed.”2 Fr. Grigorieff’s post-autocephaly version reveals that negotiations were actually resumed in 1967, “during a visit of the Metropolitan Nikodim to the United States.”3
Diakonia, vol. V, no. 2, 1970, p. 143.
Loc. cit.
St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, no. 4, 1970, p. 216.
The Moscow Patriarchate’s decision of May, 1968, to recognize marriages between Orthodox and Catholics even when performed by a Catholic priest apparently caused no alarm among the leaders of the Metropolia, despite its clearly un-Orthodox nature. And no wonder. “Autocephaly” was now in sight.
The meeting between Nikodim and the Metropolia delegates to the Uppsala Assembly of the World Council of Churches in the summer of 1968 proved to be highly significant. A “procedure for negotiations” was worked out, and the drive for autocephaly began in earnest. After two “unofficial” meetings with Nikodim in New York on January 21, 1969, and February 3, 1969, the Metropolia’s Great Council of Bishops resolved to enter into “official negotiations” with Moscow. On August 24 and 25, 1969, Nikodim met with Frs. Schmemann, Meyendorff, Pishtey, and Skvir of the Metropolia in Geneva, Switzerland. Basic agreement was reached. The only two troublesome points turned out to be (1) what to do with those Moscow Patriarchate parishes in America that did not wish to enter the autocephaly, and (2) what to do with the Japanese Orthodox, the great majority of whom were canonically submitted to the Metropolia. It was decided to have another meeting in Tokyo to resolve these problems.
Before this meeting could take place, however, Metropolitan Nikodim had already visited Rome, where on October 12, 1969, he served a liturgy in the chapel of the Russicum, an institution the express purpose of which is the conversion of Russia to Roman Catholicism, and gave communion to a number of Latins there present. This ecumenical “first,” part of the Moscow-Vatican reapprochement of the ‘sixties, soon became known to the leaders of the Metropolia, where it no doubt caused some anxiety. “Will Moscow retain its vestiges of Orthodoxy long enough to grant autocephaly?” is a question which may well have been on some Metropolia minds. Moreover, there was the danger that Nikodim’s act might be negatively received by the Metropolia faithful, the majority of whom were ex-Uniates with a distaste for the Papal See. In fact, it apparently did not become generally known.
With her goal in sight, the Metropolia chose to ignore this obvious warning signal. By November 28, 1969, Nikodim had succeeded in persuading the Metropolia’s Japanese diocese to accept “autonomy” under Moscow. On that day in Tokyo the finishing touches were put on the autocephaly agreement by Nikodim and the Metropolia delegates. It was decided that Patriarchal parishes in America could remain under Moscow on a temporary basis; “autonomy” was to be granted to the Japanese Church.
According to Chancellor Pishtey of the Metropolia, “The basic content of the (autocephaly) agreement was approved by our Sobor of Bishops” in September, 1969, “and then reported to the Diocesan conventions of all our Dioceses, where it met with unanimous approval.”1 One cannot help wondering about the accuracy of Fr. Pishty’s last statement. In the uproar following the appearance of his “notification” of December 6, 1969, it turned out that a large number of Metropolia priests and virtually all of her laymen were taken totally by surprise. In any case, it is a fact that a good percentage of the Metropolia clergy and a staggering majority of her laity knew absolutely nothing about the preparations for autocephaly being concluded in Tokyo on November 28.
Diakonia, Vol. V, no. 2, 1970, p. 143.
Less than three weeks after the Tokyo agreement, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate announced an official decision to admit Roman Catholics and Old Believers to Orthodox sacraments in the Soviet Union. This decision of December 16, 1969, became widely known in the United States after it was published by The New York Times of February 21, 1970 (p. 23), under the heading, “Russian Priests May Minister to Roman Catholics.”
With this announcement our most merciful God gave the Metropolia a last providential chance to reconsider what exactly it was that she was doing. If the learned leaders of the Metropolia could not grasp the wrongfulness of dealing with a hierarchy manifestly unfree to perform its Orthodox duty, then, one would have thought, they would have at least scrupled at the impropriety of receiving autocephaly from a body that had officially granted Orthodox sacraments to non-Orthodox.
Ignoring whatever prickings of conscience they may have had, the leaders of the Metropolia decided to overlook this last awesome misstep by the Moscow Patriarchate, and, on March 31, 1970, Metropolitans Nikodim and Ireney signed the agreement for autocephaly. The process begun in 1961 had come to an end.
Immediately following the conclusion of the agreement of March 31, full canonical communion was established between Moscow and the Metropolia. The Metropolia’s young Bishop Theodosius of Alaska flew twice to Moscow, where he participated in both the funeral service for Patriarch Alexis and the forty-day memorial service. The active participation of such heterodox luminaries as the Armenian Catholicos Vazgen I and Cardinal Jan Willebrands of the Vatican Secretariat at the patriarch’s funeral forced Theodosius strategically to disregard the Metropolia’s own prohibition against common liturgical prayer with non-Orthodox.
On May 30, 1970, Bishop Juvenaly of Tula, Nikodim’s first-substitute as chairman of Moscow’s Foreign Affairs Department, was a “surprise guest” as a much-publicized liturgy at St. Tikhon’s Monastery on South Canaan, Pennsylvania. With great solemnity Juvenaly concelebrated with Metropolitan Ireney, Archbishop Kiprian, and Bishop Theodosius of Alaska of the Metropolia.
Five months later at the same St. Tikhon’s Monastery the First Sobor of the new “autocephalous” Church was held. On October 20, the first day of the Sobor, Chancellor Pishtey read aloud the tomos of autocephaly, and by a vote of 301 to 7, with 2 abstentions, the Sobor resolved the change its name to “the Orthodox Church in America.”
There has been considerable confusion about what this Sobor actually did. Did it give final approval to the autocephaly? Or had this already been dome on March 31, when Metropolitan Ireney signed his agreement with Metropolitan Nikodom? A recent issue of the Metropolia’s monthly publication The Orthodox Church provides the answer. In a letter to the editor of the publication, Fr. John Meyendorff, a certain Fr. Paul Kucynda of Wayne, New Jersey, a delegate to the Sobor, writes, “I do not believe that any delegate voted to accept or reject autocephaly, for this is out of our competency. What we did do was vote overwhelmingly to change the name of our Church. This, I agree, can be and should be taken as nearly full support of the previous action of our Bishops’ Council in whose full competency lies the matter of autocephaly. . . .”1
The Orthodox Church, January, 1971, p. 4.
Fr. Meyendorff answers Fr. Kucynda by agreeing with him: “your interpretation of the Council’s (i.e. Sobor’s) action is correct. The autocephaly was requested and accepted by the Council of Bishops as the supreme canonical authority of our Church.”2
Loc cit.
This interesting friendly exchange to views tells us that the October Sobor in fact had absolutely nothing to do with the autocephaly, which was fully obtained on March 31. Fr. Meyendorff’s statement that the Council of Bishops is the supreme authority in the Metropolia is puzzling when one reads in the Metropolia statues that it is the All-American Sobor which is the supreme authority. True, according to the Metropolia’s statues the decisions of the Sobor must be approved by the Council of Bishops (although this was not done in 1946 at the Cleveland Sobor), but this does not alter the case. Obviously what the Metropolia should have done was to hold an All-American Sobor before Metropolitan Ireney signed the agreement, not afterwards. In the past the Metropolia always left it to her Sobors to make such crucial decisions.
The fact of the matter is that the Metropolia, for all its rhetorics about “sobornost” (i.e., “catholicity”), did not even consult the broad mass of its clergy and laity before concluding negotiations for autocephaly on March 31. The October Sobor could have reversed the autocephaly had it wished to do so; the most it could have done was to reject a proposed change of name.
It may be argued that this objection is only academic, since, as it turned out, the overwhelming majority of the delegates to the Sobor did support the autocephaly. Such an argument, however, in no way excuses the fact that a serious procedural mistake was (intentionally) made – viz., that the Sobor followed rather than preceded the ratification, as (according to the Metropolia’s own statues) it should have been done. It also ignores the fact that there was considerable opposition to the autocephaly within the Metropolia itself. Once this opposition realized that it had no opportunity to fight against the autocephaly, it simple left the Metropolia ofr the Russian Church Abroad, since it is difficult to rebut a fait accompli.
It is more than obvious that the leaders of the Metropolia feared that a Sobor held before ratification might give rise to some serious dispute. They therefore decided to present the Sobor with an agreement which had already been concluded.
After the appearance of Fr. Pishtey’s announcement in the Novoe Russkoe Slovo of December 6, the “autocephaly controversy” began. In defending the Metropolia’s position her apologists usually resorted to arguments which asserted or maintained the following: (1) The “readiness” of the American Metropolia for autocephaly; (2) The “necessity” of this autocephaly for the health and prosperity of Orthodoxy in America; (3) The “full canonical legitimacy” of the Moscow Patriarchate; (4) The “utter impossibility” that the Moscow Patriarchate could gain any influence over the Metropolia; and (5) The “correctness” of the canonical surrender of the Metropolia’s Japanese Diocese to Moscow.
As far as the “readiness” of the Metropolia for autocephaly is concerned, enough has been said in the preceding Chapters of this study. As was shown, even Fr. Schmemann in his moments of candor has been willing to admit in print the woeful state of the Metropolia’s Orthodoxy.
As for the “necessity” of the autocephaly for the health and well-being of American Orthodoxy, it should be observed at once that this argument is a favorite one with Metropolia apologists, and has had considerable success among the Orthodox of other jurisdictions in America. “Ought not there to be one Orthodox Church in America?” the Metropolia apologists shrilly cry. This emotional argument finds considerable success among the more idealistic elements of the Greek, Syrian, Rumanian, et al. jurisdictions, who recently have become vocally critical of the disunity of the American Orthodox flock.
Obviously the fact that there is little unity among Orthodox in American is wrong and a sin against God. But to conclude from this that the evil of disunity justifies a minimal unity at any cost, including the surrender of the Japanese Church to Moscow and the entering into communion with hierarchs clearly subservient to atheist dictates (and who are, in addition, in sacramental communion with Roman Catholics), is even a worse wrong and a greater sin. The ends in this case clearly do not justify the means. If true unity among the Orthodox in America is to come about, it must be as the result of a change of heart, of a renewed dedication on the part of the faithful, their pastors, and archpastors, to our merciful Saviour and His Holy Church, the ark of salvation. The Metropolia’s “autocephaly” represents a cynical and mechanically legalistic attempt to impose unity by means of an ecclesiastical coup. As Metropolitan Philaret of the Russian Church Abroad has observed, the Grace of God cannot rest on such an action.
The Metropolia, as we have seen, now unequivocally recognizes the canonicity of the Moscow Patriarchate: “We recognize, and we have always done so, the canonicity and holiness of the Russian Church. . . .”1 “We have always believed in the full presence of grace in the Russian Church, this presence being once more so clearly shown in the manner of recognizing the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America.”2
Fr. Pishtey, Diakonia, vol. V, no. 2, 1970, p. 202.
Fr. G. Benigsen in Logos, January, 1971.
A study of the Metropolia’s past, however, shows that this passionate defense of the legitimacy of the Moscow Patriarchate has had an uneven history. When it seemed that ecclesiastical independence might be extracted from Moscow, then she became the holy “Mother Church.” But when Moscow pronounced various threats and suspensions, as she did under Platon and Theophilus, then the Patriarchate became an institution “subservient to the communists.”
Fr. Schmemann, for example, is currently a passionate apologist for Moscow’s legitimacy. Not so long ago, as a member of the Parisian Russian Exarchate canonically under Constantinople, he was an equally passionate defender of the prerogatives of Constantinople against those of Moscow.
And indeed the Metropolia’s conviction that only Moscow could grant autocephaly to American Orthodoxy has had some weak moments in the recent past. At the Sobor of October, 1970 (to cite only one instance), the Metropolia’s Archbishop John of San Francisco made a startling admission:
Archbishop John of San Francisco stated in the sessions (of the Sobor) that he had been in Constantinople and had personally offered to Patriarch Athenagoras that he take under his omophor the Orthodox Church in America on the basis of a uniting, in the first place, of the Greek parishes subject to him and our parishes with the aim of uniting other ethnic parishes in the future. The Patriarch categorically refused.1
Sobor report of the Parish News of Sts. Peter and Paul Cathedral in Montreal, December-January, 1970-1, p. 11.
And if he had not refused? Then there would have emerged an “Orthodox Church in America” proclaimed by Constantinople, not Moscow. It is obvious that what the Metropolia wanted was autocephaly. How she obtained it was really a matter of secondary importance. When Athenagoras balked at John’s offer, the Metropolia turned once and for all to the more agreeable Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad.
Clearly, the cynical pragmatism of the Metropolia stands revealed.
The Metropolia admits that there is one group of believers which does have the right to judge the activities of the Moscow Patriarchate – the martyric Russian Church. Thus, Fr. Pishtey writes: “We do not take upon ourselves the right to judge in a blasphemous way the Russian Church or any of its hierarchs. If such judgement is necessary, then he alone is entitled to make it who has traversed along the road of the martyred Russian Church. He who has thus endured has the right to judge concerning its deeds and actions.”1
Diakonia, vol. 5, no. 2, 1970, p. 202.
An interesting admission when considered in connection with some of the recent statements of the martyric Russian Church on the Moscow Patriarchate leadership! Here is the testimony of Boris Talantov, Orthodox confessor and martyr who perished in a prison hospital in Kirov on January 4, 1971:
The activity of the Moscow Patriarchate abroad is a conscious betrayal of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Christian faith. . . .Metropolitan Nikodim is betraying the Church not out of fear but out of conscience. . . .The time has come to unmask the betrayal by the Moscow Patriarchate abroad; Metropolitan Nikodim’s hour has struck. . . .2
From Michael Bourdeaux (ed.), Patriarch and Prophets, New York, 1970, pp. 331-2.
Or there is this statement by the confessor Feodisiya Varavva, terribly persecuted by the Soviet state for her bold confession of the Orthodox faith and, especially, for her attempt to bring her children up as Christians:
We are spiritual orphans who have no pastors. Most of our pastors have bowed to the godless communists and serve their will, not apostolic traditions and the decrees of the ecumenical councils. The true pastors, of whom there remain so few, are themselves harassed by state officials and by those pastors who have submitted to the godless communists.3
Ibid., p. 177
Varavva specifically names Metropolitans Nikodim of Leningrad and Pimen of Krutitsk as betrayers of the Russian Church.1
Ibid., pp. 173-5.
Finally, a statement from the Moscow priests, Frs. Nikolay Eshliman and Gleb Yakunin, who were suspended by the Patriarchate for their courageous defense of the persecuted Church:
Neither the cunning of the Department of Foreign Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, nor any interviews and authoritative statements, nor any participation of Russian hierarchs in international movements are capable of proving something that does not exist – the freedom of the Russian Church.2
From St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, vol. X, 1966, nos. 1-2, p. 105.
Fr. Pishtey! Has the martyric Russian Church not spoken? Has it not convincingly unmasked the betrayal of the Church by the leaders of the Patriarchate, and especially by Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad, the Metropolia’s negotiating partner?
That the leaders of the Metropolia knew the testimony of the martyric Russian Church is unquestionable; several documents were even published in Metropolia publications. One must, therefore, assume that is rationalized its dealings with betrayers by saying something like this: “They may be weak sinful men, even ‘betrayers,’ but they are still lawful, ‘canonical’ representatives of the Russian Church.” This argument, of course, could never be based on the New Testament of Church Fathers. And when the Moscow leaders’ betrayal of their flock is considered together with their official decision to grant Orthodox sacraments to Roman Catholics and Old Believers, a decision made considerably before autocephaly was signed, it is clear that the Metropolia made a morally despicable move. One can only assume a total cynicism as regards the real interests of the Church.
The Metropolia’s frequent assertions that the autocephaly agreement led to absolutely no expansion of Soviet influence over her flock are unable to bear the test of an examination of what has actually happened since autocephaly. As the younger, American-born Metropolia clergy have entered into concelebrations with Moscow clergy and have begun to lead “pilgrimages” to the Soviet Union, a considerable growth in sympathy toward the Soviet Union, and particularly, towards the Moscow Patriarchate, has become very noticeable.
Young Bishop Theodosius of Alaska, after having been wined and dined on his two important visits to Moscow, conveyed a positively glowing impression of Soviet life to his chancellor, Fr. Michael Irvin, who then remarked in an interview with an Alaskan newspaper:
Bishop Theodosius. . . has been to the Soviet Union twice within the last six weeks. He says he expected to see people poorly dressed, the cities drab, etc., but that these aren’t true. He said the stores are filled with items, the cities are clean; life is not uncomfortable and people are not unhappy. They don’t like a lot of things about their government but neither do Americans. As Americans we have to reassess our ideas of life in the Soviet Union. The bishop feels we will see a great change there within 20 years.1
Alaska Empire, July 2, 1970.
Shortly afterwards, an account appeared by a Metropolia priest, Fr. Gerald Sudik of Endicott, New York, who had recently returned along with sixteen of his parishioners from a three-week visit to the Soviet Union. Fr. Sudik enthusiastically reported that they had been treated like kings as representatives of a Church just granted autocephaly by Moscow. The churches, they reported, are overflowing (this Fr. Sudik should have known, is because so few are left open); ancient churches are being restored by the State. Since 1968 the Soviet Union, fearing a war with China, has adopted a benign attitude toward the Russian Church.1
Report in Orthodox Russia, September 14, 1970.
Meanwhile, on September 5-6, 1970, a conference of the Russian Orthodox Youth Clubs of America, an organization affiliated with the Metropolia, was held in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. At the last moment it was announced that Bishop Makary Svistun, the recently-appointed permanent director of Moscow Patriarchate parishes in America and Canada and a Soviet citizen, would participate in the conference. At the liturgy on September 6 Makary concelebrated with Metropolitan Ireney. According to an eyewitness, the “leit-motif” of Makary’s sermon was, “What a joy it is to observe that the Orthodox faith is flourishing on the American continent, but one must remember our great homeland, Russia, and her great efforts for peace over the whole world.”2
Report of Georgy Nevsky, Novoe Russkoe Slovo, September 16, 1970.
Finally, one should not pass over the appreciation of Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad given by Fr. John Nehrebecki of the Metropolia’s church in Paramus, New Jersey. He was a member of Bishop Theodosius’ delegation to Moscow, and reports: “I have been asked constantly since my return about my impression of Metropolitan Nikodim of the Russian Department of External Affairs with whom the Metropolia had so much contact during the negotiations. I learned that he was raised in the Church by devout parents – particularly his mother who died only last year. He wrote an Akathist to Sts. Boris and Gleb, the first saints of Russia, when he was only 14. He was ordained deacon at 17 and accepted monastic vows. He was ordained a priest at 20 and his theological education continued up to a master’s degree of sacred theology. He was consecrated bishop at 30. He speaks fluent English. A personal impression – He brilliantly interprets the world’s religious situation. In every situation – liturgically, doctrinally, historically, and on contemporary issues, he was excellent. My opinion of him is that this dynamic churchman is one of the world’s greatest religious leaders.”1
From the Russian-Orthodox Journal, July-August, 1970.
This impression, gratefully republished by the Moscow Patriarchate’s English-language journal One Church, contrasts starkly with the opinion of the late Russian Orthodox martyr Boris Talantov: “Instead of defending the truth, the faith and his fellow Christians, Metropolitan Nikodim is lying and slandering his brothers. . . .Metropolitan Nikodim is not worthy to bear the high office of Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church. . . .”2
Michael Bourdeaux, (ed.) Patriarch and Prophets, N.Y., 1970, p. 154.
To conclude, it is more than evident that Moscow has succeeded in influencing the future leaders of the Metropolia in the direction she wishes. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the Metropolia is hardly free to criticize any actions of the Patriarchate since her autocephaly is recognized only by Moscow and Orthodox Churches such as Poland, Czechoslavakia, and Bulgaria, which are clearly in Moscow’s sphere.
Much to the Metropolia’s disappointment none of the Greek patriarchates and local Churches, nor the Antiochian, Rumanian, and Serbian patriarchates have recognized her autocephaly. At her much-publicized canonization services for St. Herman of Alaska, held in the summer of 1970, Archbishop Paavli of the Autonomous Church of Finland and Metropolitan Audrey of the Bulgarian Patriarchate were the only high-ranking non-Metropolia hierarchs present. This also represented a considerable disappointment. The lack of recognition of the Metropolia’s autocephaly by the great majority of the Orthodox Churches places the new “Orthodox Church in America” in a position of awkward dependence upon Moscow for recognition.
Perhaps the blackest aspect of the Metropolia’s autocephaly agreement was its decision to turn over its small Japanese missionary diocese to the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolia apologists are sensitive on this point and have repeatedly denied that there was any “betrayal” of the interests of the Japanese flock in the Moscow-Metropolia agreement. Thus Chancellor Pishtey writes: “As to the Japanese Church: It received full freedom to live according to its own constitution, to direct its affairs by its own synod, to choose and elevate its own hierarchy.”1 The decision for the Japanese Church to accept “autonomy” from Moscow was “freely taken by the Japanese Church itself in its synod of bishops, clerics and laity.”2 Anyone who knew Metropolitan Vladimir, the American bishop selected as the first head of the Japanese Church “could only smile at the thought he would enter upon any intrigues with the ‘Bolsheviks.’”3
Statement of May 12, 1970 in Diakonia, vol. V, no. 2, 1970, p. 202.
Loc. cit.
Loc. cit.
Fr. Pishtey’s arguments, repeated by other Metropolia apologists, were accepted on faith by the Metropolia flock and by many autocephaly enthusiasts outside the Metropolia. This is indeed unfortunate, since these arguments cannot withstand even the most elementary criticism. First, Fr. Pishtey’s assertion, so convincing to many, that the Japanese Church “freely” decided to accept “autonomy” from Moscow does not in the least excuse the Metropolia from moral responsibility for giving the Japanese a canonical release. Just as a mother has a moral obligation to care for the health of her young child, so too does a Mother Church (in this case the Metropolia) have a similar moral obligation to care for her young missionary dioceses. Even the most cursory study of the Metropolia’s history since the 1917 Revolution convinces one that she scrupulously avoided accepting “autonomy” under Moscow. Why? Because she well knew the worth of such seeing “independence.” What she always avoided for herself, however, she did not hesitate to advocate for her small, immature Japanese Mission. How can one but conclude that the Metropolia cynically elected to purchase her own “freedom” with the servitude of her Japanese Mission?
That the Moscow-Japan agreement, concluded while the Japanese Church was still canonically under the Metropolia, does in fact represent a state of servitude for the New Autonomous Church of Japan may be demonstrated by an examination of the text of the agreement, published in The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1970, no. 5, pp. 9-10. Some selected sections from the tomos of agreement:
The Metropolitan of Japan, the Head of the Japanese Autonomous Church, is elected by a Local Council of the Japanese Church and is then “confirmed” by “the Head of the Autocephalous Mother Church, His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow. . . .”
“If he who is elected (metropolitan) does not have the rank of bishop, then his ordination is performed by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia or by his representative in Tokyo, together, naturally, with the other (Japanese) bishops.”
“In case the candidate elected Head by the Holy Orthodox Autonomous Japanese Church should not possess and confess the Orthodox faith or if his life and activity should contradict the holy canons, he need not be confirmed by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow” and the Japanese Church must select another candidate.
The Metropolitan of Japan “shall inform His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow. . . of the opening of new dioceses as well as the election of new bishops together with biographical information on them.”
“In the event His Eminence the Archbishop of Tokyo, Metropolitan of All Japan, should be accused of having infringed the dogmas of the Orthodox faith or the holy canons, the investigation of his case shall take place at a Local Council of the Holy Orthodox Autonomous Japanese Church in the presence of a representative or representatives of the Head of the Autocephalous Mother Church, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, He, i.e., The Patriarch, will then confirm or not confirm the decision of the Local Council on this matter. . . .”
“The highest court of appeals (verkhovnoe parvo appelyatsii) belongs to His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the bishops, clerics and laity of the Holy Orthodox Autonomous Japanese Church must address him as a court of final instance (kak k posledney instantsii).”
“The Holy Chrism of the Holy Orthodox Autonomous Japanese Church must be received from His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.”
The Patriarchal podvor’e (i.e., methochion or embassy church) in Japan shall be outside the jurisdiction of the Autonomous Japanese Church. “The head and clergy of the podvor’e shall be assigned by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. If it shall be necessary, His Eminence the Archbishop of Tokyo, Metropolitan of All Japan, shall assist as much as is possible the arrival in Japan of clerics of the Patriarchal podvor’e assigned by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.”
“The decisions of the Local Councils of the Holy Orthodox Autonomous Japanese Church are sent to His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia for his knowledge.”
“His Holin
ess the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia can address the Holy Orthodox Autonomous Japanese Church with pastoral epistles.”
Is not Fr. Pishtey, one concludes after an examination of the above cited stipulations, somewhat exaggerating when he claims that the Japanese Church “received full freedom to live according to its own constitution. . . .”? It is more than clear that the Moscow Patriarchate, by using its right “to confirm or not to confirm” the election of the Metropolitan of Japan and its right to have final say when the metropolitan is brought to trial, has a significant voice in the life of the Japanese Church. When, in addition to this, one realizes that Moscow is the “court of final instance” for every bishop, cleric, and layman of the Japanese Church – i.e., that any bishop, cleric, or layman may appeal to Moscow for a final decision over the head of the Japanese episcopate – one becomes aware of the awesome controls exercised by Moscow over the fledgling Church. Furthermore, it should also be realized that it is up to Moscow to decide what constitutes an infringement of faith or canons. At home in the Soviet Union, for example, the Moscow Patriarchate has since 1927 considered criticisms of the politics of the U.S.S.R., including the persecution of religion by the State, as a sphere not open to clerics of the Orthodox Church. By her recent decision to grant Orthodox sacraments to Roman Catholics and Old Believers and by her frequent “ecumenical” common prayer with non-Orthodox the Patriarchate has shown how much it really respects the canons, which, of course, flatly prohibit such actions.
That the American Metropolia permitted its small, immature Japanese Mission to come under Moscow is, to conclude, perhaps the most shameful aspect of its generally shameful “autocephaly.” One can hardly help concluding that the Metropolia’s leaders consciously decided to purchase the independence for which they hungered at the cost of sacrificing the Japanese Church.
A few words are also in order concerning the “new mythology” which has been developed by the Metropolia since its reception of autocephaly.
In a lengthy, effusive speech delivered to the Sobor in October, 1970, at St. Tikhon’s Monastery, Metropolitan Ireney proclaimed: “In truth, inscrutable are the ways of God! Since at that very moment when the catholic consciousness of our Church sensed the necessity of a decisive step for the attaining of canonical clarity and ecclesiastical freedom, we met with understanding on the part of the leaders of the Russian Church.”1 For Metropolitan Ireney the chief proof that the autocephaly was “the work of the Holy Spirit” is “that readiness, which was immediately manifested by both sides (i.e., Moscow and the Metropolia) to speak not about the past but about the present and the future, to cover over this past with love, to seek not the victory of this or that side but only the benefit of the Church. . . .”2
From a translation in the Newsletter of the Orthodox Christian Witness, December, 1970, p. 5.
Ibid.
According to the “new mythology” articulated by Metropolitan Ireney, the “catholic consciousness” of the Metropolia mystically sensed that the sacred hour of autocephaly had come in the late 1960’s, while at the same time, through the marvelous workings of the Holy Spirit, the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate became suddenly and unexpectedly fired with a “love” which sought only the “benefit of the Church.” The result was the emergence of a new autocephalous Church, “the Orthodox Church in America.” As for the Metropolia’s earlier frustrated attempts to attain autocephaly in 1924, 1927, and 1946 – these attempts have now been dismissed from memory. They are not needed by the “new Mythology.” Neither is Metropolitan Leotny’s declaration in 1950 that the Metropolia was fully ready for independence. Now it is necessary to assert that only in the late ‘sixties did the Metropolia realize she had grown into an autocephalous Church.
This bold rewriting of the Metropolia’s history, however, pales before the Metropolia’s new assertion of the holiness of Moscow’s intentions in granting autocephaly. Here we enter such a world of naked fantasy that one can hardly imaging how sane men could entertain such thoughts. The Patriarchate’s sudden willingness to grant autocephaly is taken as proof of the action of the Holy Spirit.
To those who would express doubts Metropoliatn Ireney utters the following terrible threat: “To the righteous and impartial judgement of God we give over those who, held captive by human and political passions, are blinded by enmity and find it possible to blaspheme the work of God.”1
From a translation in the December, 1970, Newsletter of the Orthodox Christian Witness, p. 6.
The autocephaly is the work of the Holy Spirit. Those who oppose it blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, a sin for which, as is well known, there will be no forgiveness in this world or next.
One is dumbfounded by the simplistic criterion which Metropolitan Ireney and other Metropolia defenders employ for determining what is and what is not the work of the Holy Spirit. Certainly they know that the Orthodox delegates to the Council of Florence, with a few exceptions, also believed that the Holy Spirit had been arranging circumstances for union with the Latin (Roman Catholic) Church. They should know that God often allows the evil designs conceived in the hearts of men to come to fruit. This He does for His own holy purposes and so that evil may be clearly revealed.
To what should one ascribe the unwillingness of the Metropolia apologists to see such obvious negative features of the “autocephaly” as the surrender of the Japanese Church and Moscow’s decision, adopted before the autocephaly, to grant sacraments to Roman Catholics and Old Believers? Is this cynicism or self-deceit? Most probably, it is both.
Fr. Dimitry Grigorieff’s “The Orthodox Church in America from the Alaska Mission to the Autocephaly,” which appears in the 1970, no. 4 issue of St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, represents the first sustained attempt by a Metropolia spokesman to give expression to the “new mythology” which has emerged since the granting of autocephaly. As in Metropolitan Ireney’s speech to the October Sobor, Fr. Grigorieff significantly deemphasizes all occurrences before 1969. The Detroit Sobor of 1924, which Professor Bogolepov saw as a veiled declaration of autocephaly, now becomes simply a delicious foretaste of things to come: “This reorganization (i.e., that which was carried out by the Detroit Sobor), as we can see now, actually paved the way for the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America, to be established forty-six years later.”1
St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 1970, no. 4, p. 208.
Gone is the boldness which Professor Bogolepov manifested in seeing the Metropolia ripe for autocephaly in 1924. For Fr. Grigorieff the years since 1924 represent “years of natural growth and development,” in which the Metropolia “acquired the prerequisites of a new Church.”
For Bogolepov, the Metropolia was justified in resisting Moscow’s demands for canonical submission only because she herself had de facto “become” a local autocephalous Church. For Grigorieff, the issue is ecclesiastical freedom: “Metropolitan Platon categorically refused to give any pledge of loyalty to the Soviet State. Furthermore, in his epistle to the faithful of America, June 3, 1933, he reaffirmed the principles accepted in Detroit in 1924, rejecting administrative submission to the Moscow Patriarchate as long as it was dependent upon a communist anti-religious government. . . .”2
Ibid., p. 211.
Fr Grigorieff and the editors of St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly do not seem to see the logical fallacy in proclaiming that the Moscow Patriarchate’s suspensions, as placed upon the Metropolia, were not binding, whereas her recognitions of “autocephaly” and “autonomy” are. Furthermore, is it morally correct to surrender one’s Japanese missionary diocese to a Church which is, in Fr. Grigorieff’s own words, “dependent upon a communist anti-religious government”? Bogolepov’s claim that the Metropolia became de facto autocephalous in 1924 is ridiculous when one considers the condition the Metropolia was in at the time, but it is at least more logical that Grigorieff’s totally illogical claims. The Metropolia’s “new mythology” is no more viable than its old one.
CONCLUSION
In 1946 at the Cleveland Sobor, in a move not even approved by its own Council of Bishops, the American Metropolia went into schism from the body of which it was a canonical part, the Russian Church Abroad. This spiritual crime undid the holy work of reconciliation which had been carried out a decade before by the two great Orthodox hierarchs Patriarch Varnava of Serbia and Metropolitan Antony of the Ruissian Church Abroad. With the arrival in America during and after World War II of “Evlogian” theologians and intellectuals, the ambitions of the Metropolia’s leaders met with men capable of bringing them to fruit. The result was the “autocephaly” of 1970.
There is little or no likelihood that the Metropolia will return to its proper canonical source, as occurred in 1935. Puffed up with pride, and even entertaining visions of an American Patriarchate, the leaders of the Metropolia would hardly consent to such a step. What return there is will occur, as it did during the “autocephaly controversy” of 1969-70, when individual clergy and laity after a crisis of conscience turn to the light of Christ. In the Russian emigré community in America the autocephaly controversy served quite clearly to separate the wheat from the chaff. Unable to bear the moral compromise accepted by the Metropolia’s leaders, individuals and in some cases practically whole parishes left the “autocephaly” for the Russian Church Abroad. In the emigré daily Novoe Russkoe Slovo and in numerous other publications the emigrés living in America were able to become very well informed about the “autocephaly.” This was to the case, on the whole, for the American flock of the Metropolia, and one hopes that with time a similar winnowing-out of the faithful may take place. May God grant it!
The tragedy of the Metropolia’s present situation is that she wishes to remain lukewarm in an age of apostasy (Rev. iii. 16). Her clergy and laity want very much to be accepted in an American society which is rapidly abandoning its last vestiges of Christian morality (the proliferation of “legal abortion” on a near-genocidal scale is but one example of this). The Metropolia wishes to be accepted in a “Christian” ecumenical movement which is rapidly opening its doors to Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists, and sees as its sacred duty the financial assistance of certain revolutionary groups throughout the world. The Metropolia thirsts to be recognized by all local Orthodox Churches as a time when one of them (Moscow) is already officially granting sacraments to non-Orthodox, another (Constantinople) is doing so unofficially, and when a number of others cannot but fulfill the dictates of their communist controllers.
Further, a subtle modernizing process, which is all the more dangerous for being subtle, is being carried out by the Metropolia’s Paris-educated theologians.1 Deprived of a vital monasticism and crippled by a weak episcopate, the Metropolia has few defenses indeed with which to withstand the ravages of modernism. When the current emigré leadership, which was at least formed in the traditions of Russian Orthodoxy, gives way to the younger American-born clergy, one may expect the process of modernism to mushroom.
See Fr. Michael Azkoul’s “Answer to Fr. Schmemann” in the May-June, 1970 Orthodox Word (Reprinted as item no. 53 in the St. Nectarios Educational Series.); Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanshy’s “The Liturgical Theology of Fr. A. Schmemann in the November-December, 1970, issue of the same journal, and the same author’s “Is this Orthodoxy?” in the March-April, 1971, issue of Orthodox Life.
Let us pray our Mericful Lord and God through the supplications of His Most Holy Mother, the righteous St. Herman of Alaska, the holy martyr Peter the Aleut, and all the Saints, will cause the best sons and daughters of the American Metropolia to turn aside from this terrible temptation of “autocephaly,” so recently sown by the enemy of our salvation. May they return to the Russian Church Abroad, in whose Orthodox bosom are the seeds of a genuine American Orthodoxy, and, having returned, may they join with the episcopate, clergy, monks, and laity of the Synod in bearing witness to the unique, saving faith of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ and His Holy Apostles. Amen.
